josep Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 Is it worth buying 220 backs for medium format (6x6)? It seems that all major manufacturers simply stop making 220 film. At B&H now I can only find the Kodak Trix-X which is not my favorite. Are there other options? is 220 definitely dying? I own a Hasselblad 500 CM with a 80mm Plannar with one single 120 back. I love what it can do. Problems with that. Obvious ones: only 12 pics per roll, handheld meter, shooting over 125, bulky camera etc. But when you see the quality of the pics - everything is worth it. I am willing to do the compromise. However, I was hoping I can take more than 12 pics in one film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_appleyard Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 I know this is the b/w forum, but Kodak makes the color Portra films (I don't know about all flavors) in 220. Perhaps this makes it worthwhile buying a 220 back. Is does for me being in the wedding biz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd_phillips1 Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 There used to be several B&W emulsions in 220...but HP5 is gone as is PlusX if it was ever offered in 220. Tri-X pro is all that is left. HOWEVER....there are a lot of 220 color neg films still available and as a wedding shooter I use a lot off it (Fuji). I also shoot quite a bit of 220 chrome on commercial assignments (also Fuji). So, it's just the B&W area that is lacking. If you're not wedded to the square format, you can pick up cheap an A-16 back which will give you four more shots per roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles_hohenstein Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 I didn't realize that Fuji made any 220 films. If that is the case, I wish they would make one of their black and white films available in 220. It might be enough to make me switch from Ilford to Fuji. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_henderson Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 I use Velvia and Provia in 220 in volume, and will continue to hold/buy 220 backs for my Bronicas until they don't. B&W is a different story. There hasn't been much b&w in 220 for a while. The Tri-X referred to is not the regular 400 ISO film (TX)which is not available in 220, but the ISO 320 version (TXP). Frankly I think that serious MF users need more than one back anyway, either for a quicker change or for when you'd like to use different films interchangably. Whether that second or subsequent back should be 120 or 220 depends on what sort of films you use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aurelien_le_duc Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 I am working with Mamiya 7. No back. You have to load the film each time, and 220 film is very useful, to have 20 pics. Changing the film every 10 pics is really a problem. I would like Ilford reintroduce 220 film, but as far as I know, they won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 Historical slant:<BR><BR>When 220 came out about 1965, it was marketed for wedding photographers. Here My Mamyia C3 TLR has a 120, sheet/plate back with 3 holders, and a 220 back added later. The menu of 220 films have always been a subset of the 120 roll film menu for the last 4 decades. In many emulsions it was never made at all. For home processing not that many folks had the giant Nikor 220 reels; or a step ladder to hang the film to dry . :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zml Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 >For home processing not that many folks had the giant Nikor 220 reels; or a step ladder to hang the film to dry . :) Huh? 220 film has +- the same length (approx. 6 ft.) as a 135-36 roll and fits perfectly on a standard multiformat 35 mm/120/220 reel... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 220 film is twice as long as 120 film. If one has a decdicated hang cabinet for 120 only it will be too short. 120 is about 72cm; 220 is about 144cm. <BR><BR>In Nikor 220 reels, the reel here fits a larger tank, larger than one for 35mm or 120 reels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 There were some 220 reels that fit standard SS tanks. The spirals were close together like on a 36 exp. 35mm reel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herve_laurent Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 Hello everyone, I am one of those who is trying to get 220 alive. Frankly, I only work in B&W so I know that the only film available in 220 B&W is TXP. If only Kodak would make the TX in 220 instead of the TXP, it would be so great. For those of you who do not know it , despite the almost identical name , the film is very different ( stupid kodak marketing). Please go to www.film220.com to look at the petition to try to turn things around. Ilford has already answered they won't do it, Kodak is hopeless, so we just have to pray that someone will be able to convince Fuji to make the Neopan available in 220 A lot of stupid things have been said about 220. like 220 being more expensive. nOn- sense a roll of 220 is twice the price of a 120 , because it corresponds to 2 rolls of 120. Lots of people also forget that film flatness is a big issue for MF cameras and 220 allows better film flatness resulting into sharper pictures (especially at wide apertures) and for those of you who want to travel compact , with a mamiya 6 or 7, a TLR or simply have other stuff to carry , having half as many rolls when you travel is a big bonus Let's amke sure that we all use 220 film when we have the chance H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_appleyard Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Well, I put in my $.02 on the petition. Ilford is at least listening, which is good, but they must make a profit at making this film. I am optimistic by Ilford's response of "not at this time", which is better than Kodak's apparent apathy. We'll keep asking and the more names on the petition, the better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Hmmm Maybe get extra 120 backs? I doubt it will stay around just like the Polaroid films are going 220 was never a big seller and it is almost a no seller now. I prefer B&W but many if not a majority of Wedding photographers now use Digi and if B&W is wanted they just Photoshop it. I think that the 220 is almost dead so instead of fighting a loseing battle we must adapt without crossing over to the other"DARK" digi side. Extra 120 backs may be the answer.. preload them and slap them in place. Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helenbach Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Kodak is supplying B&W film in 220, Fuji and Ilford aren't - and yet Kodak is the bad guy? Some twisted logic there. Best, Helen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Helen In the end times logic seems to go out the window. *g* Though at times I may speak ill of Kodak I know that the Great Yellow Father still will produce some type of Silver film. I just don't like having all my eggs in 1 basket. Therefore I have a huge freezer full of differant films and a celler full of Chimistry. The problem is we are a dieing race of people...those who use film. I don't want to be known as an "Art type" I want to be known as a photographer who refused to give in to the dreaded pixles. Kodak is just trying to stay alive... as is Ilford and others....I buy film from all of them because if they make it someone has to. SAVE FILM BUY IT! Larry<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee_crump Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 I use an Mamiya RB67. The 220 backs of this camera will use 120 film w no problem. (So long as you remember to change the film after 10 exposures!) I recently picked 2 220 backs off eBay for about $60. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
profhlynnjones Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 Hi Josep You can use 120 film in 220 magazines with no trouble, you only need to keep track of the numbering. Bill Ryan and I created 220 roll film in the original Calumet (Chicago)Manufacturing Co., where we manufactured over 85% of the view cameras in the world, and about 65% of the large format Caltar lenses in the world. We created the Calumet 120/220 roll holder for our view cameras and got Kodak to adopt this film. Calumet and Kodak jointly introduced 220 roll film in the fall of 1966 at the PPA national convention. 220 is 64.75 inches,+/- .75 inches or just a bit longer than 35mm 36X roll. Lynn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now